Carrying Guns Will Stop Violent Crimes

This is a discussion on Carrying Guns Will Stop Violent Crimes within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A very well written article in support of the RKBA. While I'm not much on statistics (they can be slanted in any direction), this article ...

Carrying Guns Will Stop Violent Crimes

A very well written article in support of the RKBA. While I'm not much on statistics (they can be slanted in any direction), this article points out some information on crime rates where strict gun control is in place compared to right to carry areas.

carrying guns will reduce violant crime and lower "good guy" deaths might be more realistic. bad guys are still going to be...bad, just not as often (once they realize SOME sheep might have teeth.) But there will always be crazy, drug addicted and evil people out there. Unless all good people are armed the bad guy will always find victoms. Still a good article, but I can see many anti-gunners "shooting" holes in it.
like RONWILl said " stat's are very flexable.

"Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

Sorry, good guys carrying is going to have a minimal effect on overall crime numbers. The percentage of people who do carry is so small that even with publication of self defense incidents there is minimal chance of a criminal actually encountering a CCW holder and they know it. Given an average street crack dealer in Chicago had a 25% chance of being killed in the late 80s/early 90s and that didn't stop them I doubt CCW will ever have noticeable impact.

Of course that does not mean I oppose CCW. I fully support it on the ground that if even one citizen wishes the power to defend themselves then they should have it. I carry because I elect to be able to effectively defend myself, not because I have any hope of my doing so will matter one iota statistically in the crime statistics.

Lott did some nice work but more he has also done some stuff which was less than ethical. While his statements that gun laws have nothing to do with crime numbers and has been proven right by other statisticians and economists his claims that the presence of firearms has reduced crime have not been able to be duplicated. Just because there are clouds when it rains does not mean there is always rain when there are clouds.

Sorry, good guys carrying is going to have a minimal effect on overall crime numbers. The percentage of people who do carry is so small that even with publication of self defense incidents there is minimal chance of a criminal actually encountering a CCW holder and they know it.

I disagree, somewhat, because it has been shown that if a BG doesn't know for sure if a person is armed they're less likely to commit a crime. Of course some won't worry about it and commit the crime anyway. No one said criminals were smart.

I believe the reason so few legally armed folks are targeted is the fact that they just carry themselves better. Confidence and situational awareness usually is much higher with serious martial artists. Simply, you don't look like an easy target, even though your weapon is not showing.

Sorry, good guys carrying is going to have a minimal effect on overall crime numbers. The percentage of people who do carry is so small that even with publication of self defense incidents there is minimal chance of a criminal actually encountering a CCW holder and they know it. Given an average street crack dealer in Chicago had a 25% chance of being killed in the late 80s/early 90s and that didn't stop them I doubt CCW will ever have noticeable impact.

It is widely believed that Lott fabricated a portion of his work, a study regarding how often brandishing alone is effective in deterring a criminal. While that casts a shadow on the rest of his work (assuming its true - I believe he fudged), the rest of his work has held up to scrutiny relatively well recently.

You're also asking us to only consider a CCW use as proof of effectiveness. This is a stretch to me, it is logical that there will be a deterrent effect in communities where it is known individuals can lawfully carry. Just like it is logical that police presence is a deterrent to crime despite the fact that its very hard if not impossible to prove a causal relationship.

Of course that does not mean I oppose CCW. I fully support it on the ground that if even one citizen wishes the power to defend themselves then they should have it. I carry because I elect to be able to effectively defend myself, not because I have any hope of my doing so will matter one iota statistically in the crime statistics.

I carry for personal protection as well.

Lott did some nice work but more he has also done some stuff which was less than ethical. While his statements that gun laws have nothing to do with crime numbers and has been proven right by other statisticians and economists his claims that the presence of firearms has reduced crime have not been able to be duplicated. Just because there are clouds when it rains does not mean there is always rain when there are clouds.

I already mentioned Lott above...

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that there is no cause and effect relationship between crime rates and gun ownership.

That is Lott's position too-

Gun ownership went up at a steady rate, violent crime went up and down and all around. They were clearly not related.

He only claimed to find a downward trend in crime in states that were 'may issue' and changed to 'shall issue', and a small difference between restrictive and non-restrictive states. Poe expanded on his work by examining a jail-house survey in which a large number of felons answered that they had avoided or changed targets because they thought they might be armed. This supports the possibility of a causal relationship, but again, no real proof.

Don't get me wrong, Lott's a class A jerk in my book. He did a lot of great work, and then fudged part of it. It's cast a taint on everything, but as time goes on more and more studies are supporting his non-fudged work. So now anytime you refer to his work you've got to really be ready to go to battle over it... who needs enemies with friends like...

A very well written article in support of the RKBA. While I'm not much on statistics (they can be slanted in any direction), this article points out some information on crime rates where strict gun control is in place compared to right to carry areas.

I agree with the article. Simply viewed the states with the most restrictive gun controls laws are the most violent. States with the least restrictive are the least violent. I do not see how anyone can look at Washington DC with its rampant rate of violent crime and total gun ban. Compare it to Vermont with the lowest per capita violent crime rate in the nation and no gun control laws to speak of. Can say that more legal guns do not reduce crime. Of course they do. I would add that it is my bet that communities known to have pro gun police departments and prosecutors also contribute to the reduction of crime